Op-Ed: "Bernie Sanders doesn’t get how politics works" - Discuss

[Empowerer]

(Please keep the discussion about the substance of the piece, not personal attacks on the author, each other or any of the other things these discussions tend to spin out to).

"{E}ven with his rising poll numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire, I find it increasingly difficult to take Sanders seriously as a presidential candidate.

"Maybe it’s the fact that he’s 74, would be the oldest man to ever become president, and yet couldn’t be bothered to release his medical records until a Clinton surrogate attacked him for it. Maybe it’s that Sanders finds a way to answer virtually every question by turning it back to another predictable and one-dimensional attack on Wall Street and big money.

"Maybe it’s that he gets away with proposing unrealistic policy ideas that have little chance of being passed even by Democrats in Congress, let alone Republicans, and then gets praised for being authentic. Sunday night Sanders finally released his single-payer health care plan, which is all of eight pages and provides little detail on how he’ll implement a complete restructuring of the US health care system. That’s at least an improvement over his plan for breaking up the banks, which is four pages and just as short on detail.

"Maybe it’s that every time he answers a question on foreign policy and national security, it’s blindingly apparent that not only does he not understand foreign policy and national security, he simply doesn’t care to know more ... Maybe it’s that his political pronouncements and calls for revolution increasingly remind me of the most annoying classmates in my political science classes in college.

"It’s all that and something else — Sanders really does have a singularly naive and simple-minded understanding of American politics."

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/18/bernie-sanders-doesn-get-how-politics-works/GYDR7MTl0Vu3TSAHRMWipJ/story.html

[Human101948]

1. Written by either a Republican or a disgruntled Hillary supporter...

"Wild-eyed, unkempt dreamer!" He doesn't know that it's a pipe dream! Hillary knows the realpolitik down and dirty!

[Empowerer]

4. You're not following my instructions

You are hereby disqualified . . . Please go sit down.

[catnhatnh]

34. You own your post

Not the whole fucking board. You go sit down.

[beam me up scottie]

21. Good call, this is the same guy who was so impressed by Trump he declared him the winner:

Donald Trump the big winner of the debate
BY MICHAEL A. COHEN

Trump ran circles around all of his opponents.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/16/donald-trump-big-winner-debate/jdp6C9LJzU6VVuZ4i2kHOO/story.html

[MADem]

38. Impressed by Trump? He called him everything short of an asshole--but he did win that debate.

Trump wiped the floor with the rest of that clown car. I suffered through that thing, and I agree with Cohen's assessment.


Let's make it very clear exactly what he said about the guy:

Don’t get me wrong, Trump is still full of it. When asked about a New York Times story that quoted Trump offering support for a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods, he denied making the statement. That’s a lie, he said. If his answers Thursday night are any indication, Trump remains frighteningly ill-informed, has an extraordinarily simplistic and Manichean view of the world, and is largely unqualified to be president.

But if we’ve learned anything from the Republican presidential race so far, it is that none of these shortcomings are disqualifying for GOP voters. If anything, they are assets. And it’s the reason that when the smoke clears, more likely than not, Donald Trump will be the big winner.

I'd say he's more 'horrified' than 'impressed.'

[thomservo]

2. More individual donors...

Than any candidate in history!

[Empowerer]

5. You are not following instructions

You, too, are hereby disqualified . . . Please go sit down.

[zazen]

3. I agree that we need a movement, not one man--he can't do it alone

It's only naivete if you're operating within the frame that you're not invoking the electorate at every step.

He really thinks--and it's plausible, with social media and an enraged electorate--that he may very well have to galvanize protesters every step of the way and that he can't rely on the daily back and forth of elected officials who do back room trade-offs (which is how 20th century American politics _has_ worked) and report back summaries of what they've accomplished.

It's not naive to think American citizens are ready to participate much more actively in the daily legislative, not just electoral, process. It's ambitious. It's collective, and we all bear some responsibility. But he was told he was too ambitious six months ago, and look where we are.

I disagree that he knows nothing about foreign policy. He knows quite a bit and certainly more than George W. Bush did or even Bill Clinton in 1992 (or Reagan in 80). He's just not interested in having that conversation and having his main domestic messages be derailed into hype about homeland threats from Daesh.

[Empowerer]

7. Thank you for a thoughtful, substantive post

Very interesting. Something to think about.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. The writer doesn't understand how fundementally politics is changing n/t

[malthaussen]

12. You need to enlarge on that.

Otherwise, it's simply a bare assertion.

-- Mal

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Don't have time now, getting ready to go to work....

I guess you could say that I'm just putting it out there now for discussion.

[Thenewire]

23. And not for the better...

If you haven't looked Trump and Cruz together have the majority of the republican vote and either one of them is the potential candidate. One of the major political parties in the US is about to pick an extremist fanatic as their leader and the establishment will get behind their monster since all they care about is winning and undoing what Obama has achieved. One of them is religious for the convenience of concealing his malicious intent and the other has an immense ego and a legion of barbaric racists backing him. The fundamentals of politics are definitely changing and they are not for the better. So please keep in mind that there are other pressing issues here when some seemingly normal people would consider a more 'moderate' Trump as a viable candidate in a general election, regardless of the xenophobic and insulting rhetoric he has used only a few months back.

[EndElectoral]

8. They used to say-Soc. Sec, Medicare, Civil rights, and putting a person on the moon was unrealistic

[Thenewire]

9. I can see the republican ads now...

Targeting Sanders for his overzealous use of the word revolution comparing him to Lenin. They know how easy it would be to win against Sanders because the environment is already in their favor. Regardless of how much you agree with Sanders or how good his ideas are the majority of people are afraid of this kind of change. Single payer is definitely one of the best policies that can be implemented in this country but it does not address the root of the problem which is greed and a culture that is generally told to believe that healthcare is not a right.

[sufrommich]

15. Images the howls that would come from the GOP if Clinton

promised to raise taxes on the middle class,now note their silence when Sanders does exactly that. That's all you need to know as to who they would rather run against. Sanders is their fantasy candidate.

[navarth]

28. "promised to raise taxes on the middle class" really?

disingenuous at best

[MADem]

39. Yes. Really. Come on--surely you know this? It's in his just - released 'plan.'

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/17/10784528/bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-care

Clinton's third attack was that Sanders's plan would raise taxes on the middle class. In response, Sanders gets very detailed on the financing of his plan. It would raise taxes on the middle class — in part through a 2.2 percent tax increase on all income, and in part by a 6.2 percent "income-based premium" on employers (which would, in turn, get passed on to workers through lower wages and higher prices).

[navarth]

41. oh stop it.

So I save thousands a year on premiums and my tax goes up a small percentage of that, meaning a net gain? You know this. Come on yourself.

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. Discuss? "Bullshit". End of discussion.

[Kalidurga]

14. You are not following the OPs instructions

Go sit down.

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. Damn. Seems I've always had that problem. nt

[Kalidurga]

25. Me too

I laughed and laughed when I saw the instructions. "Please post something of substance to this article of no substance."

[NCTraveler]

11. He doesn't need to.

As a middle aged man, he figured out how to campaign. That is what his career has been about. Once he figured that out, it has simply been about self-preservation.

[MoonRiver]

13. Yes, I very much agree with this oped.

More and more Sanders comes across as confused and muddled about every issue except regulating Wall Street and breaking up the big banks. Trouble, for him, is that the other candidates largely agree with him on those points. I guess he thinks throwing in the word "revolution" every other sentence will distinguish him somehow. Maybe it does, but not in a good way, at least for me. JM2B.

[jehop61]

17. This is a good portrayal

Of my thoughts about Sen Sanders, as well. He has great ideas about what we should be as a nation, but neglects to tell us how that comes about. He never discusses how he'll work with a hostile Congress and big money supplied to said Congress to block him. We Democrats must come together to avoid a GOP takeover of our government. A progressive revolution is difficult to bring about from a largely lethargic electorate. We all have to work too hard. Love Bernie, but I agree, he is naive as to the ways of Washington.

[mikehiggins]

18. "Maybe it’s that he gets away with proposing unrealistic policy ideas..."

FDR tried to stack the Supreme Court. The attempt didn't succeed. How many people even remember he tried? Instead they remember the CCC, Social Security, any number of unrealistic policy ideas.

The difference between that, and the OP Ed writers' view is the difference between leadership and accomodation. If you have a strong belief in something legitimate it doesn't constitute "a singularly naive and simple-minded understanding of American politics."

If you don't believe in anything you'll buy anything. We believe the US has taken a wrong turn to the Right that has to be corrected. Whining that it will be hard is pathetic. Of course it will be hard but if this country is supposed to be one "of the people, by the people and for the people," it will be necessary to roll up our sleeves and get to work.

That was the lesson FDR taught America's right wing. You have to be in it for the long haul or you shouldn't even pull your truck out of the garage.

Oh, and "naive and simple minded" hardly applies to Sanders. "Determined and moved by a clear vision" is much more accurate.

[EndElectoral]

22. Imagine if Lincoln had said, "Repealing slavery is unrealistic."

[Thenewire]

27. He did believe it was until the Civil War made it realistic

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-alexander-h-stephens/

[mythology]

40. That was a little awkward

[mmonk]

19. I would say the simple minded are the ones

who say the rich and powerful will take care of the many through creating a system that feeds them through the public trough, tax reductions, and unregulated systems.

[Gore1FL]

24. I find the piece lacking substance.

We are lead to believe that things are a certain way because the author states so. They did neither a good job demonstrating why Sanders is wrong nor why they were correct.

[Skwmom]

26. Bernie gets how "politics" work. That is why he is running. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Or, maybe, he DOES know "how politics" works and is trying to change it.

He sees income inequality writ large in this country helped by the political process.

He sees endless and needless wars and wants to stop the politicians from starting and supporting them for the sake of political expediency.

He sees the development of a permanent underclass in the country and want's to dissolve it..

He sees the influence of corporate money in buying politicians and wants to stop it.

He sees an oligarchy running the country and wants to exchange it for a democracy.

[Gothmog]

30. This is a great editorial

[onecaliberal]

31. More of the same we can't change anything Bologna.

It is insane to keep doing the same things over and over expecting a different result. These threads are getting completely OLD!

[Eric J in MN]

32. How Politics Works

People vote for politicians they agree with, knowing that those politicians won't be able to accomplish everything they try.

How Politics Doesn't Work

People vote for politicians they disagree with, since change is impossible.

[Vinca]

33. I don't think Bernie wants to get how politics works.

He's not a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" kind of guy. And I resent the ageism. The man's got extraordinary energy for a person of any age.

[2pooped2pop]

35. translstion: Bernie won't be bought

Like the rest of them

[Hell Hath No Fury]

36. You first.

[MADem]

37. I have to agree with this assessment--the naivete is stunning, given he has a quarter century in DC

under his belt. It's like he has this idea that everyone in the country has a childlike and fresh-faced "I just took a POLITICS 101 Course, and I know it all" view towards how things get done in DC. Republicans and Democrats don't HATE one another? Please--who remembers Dick Cheney snarling "Fuck off" at Pat Leahy at the seersucker photo op one fine summer in the Senate? As Pat chortled with glee at seeing the miserable basstid so pissed off, and cooed "Awww, don't be like that..." or words to that effect!!

This bit hit home:

....He genuinely seems to believe — and I know this because he repeatedly yelled it at me during the debate — that money is the root of all evil in politics and that if you get the big money out, great things will happen. Sanders said that “a handful of billionaires . . . control economic and political life of this country.” He argued that Republicans and Democrats don’t “hate each other.” He called that a “mythology.” Instead, he said, the “real issue is that Congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them to do.”

I’m sorry, but that is a maddeningly simplistic — and wrong — explanation of how American politics works.

Take single-payer health care, which Sanders claims has been difficult to enact because of a corrupt campaign finance system that allows the “pharmaceutical industry” and private insurance companies to spend millions in “campaign contributions and lobbying.”

On the one hand, Sanders is right — those are powerful interests. But so are doctors and hospitals, who’d pay a huge price if single payer became law; so are Republicans, who fought tooth and nail to defeat Obamacare and would do the same for a single-payer plan; so are Democrats, who couldn’t even support a public option for Obamacare and are unlikely to support single payer; so are Americans, who may not be inclined to support another restructuring of the health care system — a few years after the last one. It’s not just about money; it’s also about a political system constructed and reinforced to block the kind of massive reform Sanders is advocating. Money is important, but it’s not even close to the whole story.

How someone who’s been in Washington as long as Sanders can believe that all that stands between doing “what the American people want (Congress) to do” is something as simple as reforming campaign finance is stunning. Sanders, who brags the NRA gives him a D- rating, is the same politician who supported legislation giving gun manufacturers immunity from civil lawsuits and voted against the Brady Bill. Why? Perhaps it is because Sanders comes from a state that has few gun control laws and lots of gun owners. Yes red-state senators who oppose gun control receive contributions from the NRA. They also have constituents who oppose gun control measures and vote on the issue — like Bernie Sanders. It’s as if in Sanders’ mind, parochialism, ideology, or politics plays no role . . . in politics.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/18/bernie-sanders-doesn-get-how-politics-works/GYDR7MTl0Vu3TSAHRMWipJ/story.html


The repeated cluelessness about Saudi Arabia, though, is even MORE troubling. Doesn't he have a single foreign policy advisor on staff? Or is he relying on Jane for THAT, too?

Maybe it’s that every time he answers a question on foreign policy and national security, it’s blindingly apparent that not only does he not understand foreign policy and national security, he simply doesn’t care to know more. I mean, only Bernie Sanders could answer a question about instability Middle East by pivoting to an attack on wealthy nations like Saudi Arabia, which he repeatedly says has to play a greater role in the civil war in Syria, as if no one on his staff could bother to tell him that Saudi Arabia is already playing an important role in the civil war in Syria.

[cannabis_flower]

42. Somehow I don't think..

that someone who has run in 20 races and served in the House and the Senate doesn't know how things work

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Bernie_Sanders